Patriot Act

[altivo]

Our congresstwits have failed to fix the gross errors they made in expanding the Patriot Act (HR1399, S1389). The conference committee to reconcile the two bills totally failed to do anything about the terrible increased authority granted to the FBI to invade your personal privacy without your knowledge, without accountability, without public record.

This amounts to a return to the days of Eugene McCarthy, when Americans were hounded for things they never did, made criminals for acts they never committed, and denied the freedom of personal belief and speech.

All US citizens should contact their representative and senators NOW to tell them that the extension and expansion of the Patriot act is not acceptable and must not happen. The Senate could vote at any time, though a philibuster is proposed.

Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

Comments

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

But if we do that, They'll put our names on a list, and then They'll come for us in the middle of the night and ...

(Sorry. I would've been more serious, but no one else had commented yet and I thought this might spur more talk.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually I had written to my reps some time ago, because I find the library records thing particularly odious. And stupid. Libraries don't keep long term records of what people have been reading, in part because of the McCarthy era experience. It just shows how ignorant some members of congress are that they even thought it appropriate to give the government power to demand your library "records". Lessee....he owes 30 cents in fines and has had a library card since 1976. That's suspicious, he must read. No red blooded American reads stuff, we all know that. Lock him up and throw away the key. I really think that's the attitude.

In Stalinist Russia, there were public libraries. They kept permanent records of every book that everyone read and could provide the KGB with a complete list of your reading from the time you were a little child. Is this what our astute members of congress and brilliant homeland security forces are expecting? And what are they going to conclude from the fact that you read British mysteries or have a penchant for Hemingway? It's so ridiculous no matter how you look at it that it points up the total idiocy of our politicians.

Anyway, the surprising thing was that just yesterday I got a letter back from my congresstwit. He IS a twit. Generally a knee-jerk republican who votes the party line without thinking or questioning. But he says he is voting AGAINST the conference committee version of the Patriot Act renewal, precisely because it is an invasion of personal privacy and cannot be justified. Knock me down with a horsefeather. Maybe some of them are starting to wake up and see what they're doing.

[calydor.livejournal.com]

If he votes against it, makes you wonder what he checks out at the library ...

Anyway, wasn't there a case a couple of years ago with a writer that actually got in trouble with Homeland Security because she checked out a bunch of books about terrorism as research for her next book, or did I imagine that?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I do not know of such a case. But under the terms of the law, it would be secret. We are forbidden to tell anyone that we were asked to provide records. The court is forbidden to tell that the records were examined.

Last year I ordered a bunch of books about terrorism. That would make me suspect as well. Catering to terrorist interests in the community.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

What would that say about publishers who put out books on terrorism?
/* is now very nervous */

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Most likely depends on whether said publisher is a large donor to Republican party campaign funds.

/* is not nervous but very cynical */

This whole absurd thing is designed not for anyone's protection but rather to help keep the jingoism inflamed and the support going for Bush's oil wars. Very little that the government has done since 9/11 amounts to actual protection. It's all cosmetic, designed to impress the gullible in hopes they will continue to vote for the powers that be. Judging by the 2004 election, it worked, but I sincerely hope the glamor is wearing off now. Enough is enough. The entire world is beginning to hate us, we haven't gained a thing, our economy is bankrupt, and like Vietnam, the war will go on for decades at this rate.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

I thought we were making good progress on that fear thing. After all the decades of fear during the Cold War, to not have an enemy lurking in the shadows was rather liberating. Then the crazy old men (Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.) decided a world without fear was not good for us, somehow, so they've brought it back. Bastards.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yup. Except it's not that a world without fear is not good for US. A world without fear is not good for THEM. They are the ones who reap huge advantages in money and power when they succeed in keeping people frightened and docile. You have it exactly right. In farming we use this very technique, with sheep and a herd dog.

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

I'm the sort that wouldn't have just voted for Nixon but would
have gone door to door for him. Law and Order!

But even so, I must admit this makes me very nervous. @.@

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The trouble with the "law and order" attitude is that it always involves someone deciding what "order" is. And their idea is never the same as mine.

Should Pat Robertson be allowed to determine what "law and order" is? Should Jesse Jackson? I'd rather not.